Who should pay for technical debt? Exploring software professionals perceptions about technical debt accountability
通过访谈25名软件专业人员，研究他们对技术债务问责制的看法，发现组织问责机制和集体文化影响感知，提出技术债务问责制可作为协调和共识机制，促进软件质量文化。
Technical debt (TD) highlights the consequences of suboptimal design decisions made during Information Systems (IS) development. Despite reducing IS quality, if taken strategically and managed proactively, TD enables firms to gain a competitive advantage in the short-term. However, if taken without strategic intent and left unresolved, TD can lead to significant costs in the long-term. Previous studies mainly examine TD accumulation at the organizational level and its latent costs to the organization. However, considering the crucial role of individuals in IS development, further research is needed to provide us with a theoretical understanding of TD that is accumulated because of unnecessary shortcuts taken by software professionals without any strategic intent. To explore this costly concern, we interviewed 25 software professionals across industry domains and from all three global regions. Using accountability theory as a lens, we conducted thematic analysis and qualitative comparative analysis to uncover the participants' perceptions of responsibilities and accountability issues associated with the accumulation and management of TD. Our analysis shows that software professionals' perception of TD accountability is influenced by 1) the extent to which prospective and retrospective accountability mechanisms are established in organizations and the way they are followed (i.e., bureaucratically vs. democratically) and 2) the extent to which collective culture emphasizes the importance of ensuring software quality and promotes compliance with quality rules. Thus, we propose TD accountability as a crucial coordination and consensus building mechanism for promoting a quality culture in development teams and facilitating appropriate accumulation and management of TD in organizations. In addition to contributing to IS literature, we provide insights for organizations to coordinate the accumulation and management of TD. • Technical debt (TD) indicates the accrued liability of suboptimal design decisions. • We show the importance of differentiating between coordinated and uncoordinated TD. • We offer a novel account of perceived TD accountability and responsibilities. • TD accountability can serve as a coordination and consensus building mechanism. • We recommend firms enact TD accountability democratically, not bureaucratically.